What Bible Passage Most Worries Christians?

[Miles]

.

OR at least gives you pause about the truth of the Bible. This follows on the heels of Transponder's thread: "What Bible passage most worries atheists?"

As I see it the Bible is filled with contradictions: Such as the true father of Salah (Sala).

Genesis 10:24
24 And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.

Luke 3:35-36
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

And mistakes god made:

1 Samuel 15:35 (3 versions)
CEV
Even though Samuel felt sad about Saul, Samuel never saw him again. The Lord was sorry he had made Saul the king of Israel.
KJ21
And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul; and the Lord repented that He had made Saul king over Israel.
CEB
Samuel never saw Saul again before he died, but he grieved over Saul. However, the Lord regretted making Saul king over Israel.

Plus God's Incredible cruelty

1 Samuel 15:2-3
2 The Lord All-Powerful says: ‘When the Israelites came out of Egypt, the Amalekites tried to stop them from going to Canaan. I saw what the Amalekites did. 3 Now go fight against the Amalekites. You must completely destroy the Amalekites and everything that belongs to them. Don’t let anything live; you must kill all the men and women and all of their children and little babies. You must kill all of their cattle and sheep and all of their camels and donkeys."’

Along with his great plans that went kaput! God is fallible.

Genesis 6: 11-13,
11-12 When God looked at the earth, he saw that people had ruined it. Violence was everywhere, and it had ruined their life on earth.
13 So God said to Noah, “Everyone has filled the earth with anger and violence. So I will destroy all living things. I will remove them from the earth.

Genesis 7:21, 23
21Every living thing on earth died—every man and woman, every bird, and every kind of animal.
23 In this way God wiped the earth clean

Problems Begin Again
Genesis 9:20-25
20 Noah became a farmer and planted a vineyard. 21 One day Noah made some wine. He got drunk, went into his tent, and took off all his clothes. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw that his father was naked and told his brothers who were outside the tent. 23 Shem and Japheth took a robe, put it across their shoulders, and walked backward into the tent. Then they covered their father without looking at him.
24 Later, Noah woke up. (He was sleeping because of the wine.) When he learned what his youngest son Ham had done to him, 25 he said,

“May there be a curse on Canaan
May he be a slave to his brothers.”

I think you get the idea. What Bible Passage Most Worries Christians?

.

[JehovahsWitness]

Genesis 10:24
24 And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.

Luke 3:35-36
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad...

GENESIS

Arphaxad
Salah;
Eber

Or

LUKE

Arphaxad
Cainan
Sala
[H]eber

Luke inserts a second “Cainan,” between Arphaxad (Arpachshad) and Shelah. (Luke 3:35, 36; compare Genesis 10:24; 11:12; 1 Chronicles 1:18, 24.) Most scholars take this to be a copyist’s error. “Cainan” is not found in this relative position in the genealogical listings in the Hebrew or the Samaritan texts, nor in any of the Targums or versions, except the Septuagint. And it does not seem that it was even in the earlier copies of the Septuagint. Josephus, who usually follows the Septuagint, lists Salah (Shelah) next as the son of Arphaxad (Arpachshad). (Antiquities of the Jews, Book I, chap. VI, par. 7) Early writers Irenaeus, Africanus, Eusebius and Jerome rejected the second “Cainan” in copies of Luke’s account as an interpolation

source Aid to Bible Understanding p. 639-640

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

BIBLICAL INERRANCY , COPYIST ERRORS and CORRUPTION OF SCRIPTURE

[JehovahsWitness]

I dont believe any scripture I have read haw wordied me. I have either understood it or not, but once I came to accept the bible as Gods inspired word nothing in it has been a source of worry, on the contrary I feel as did the Psalmist ...

[JehovahsWitness]

DID THE WITCH OF ENDOR REALLY SEE A DEAD MAN TALKING ?

No, she saw a vision (an optical illusion) of someone or something that fitted Samuel's description talking. Since the bible is clear that dead people can do nothing (as people cease to exist when they die), it seems reasonable to conclude she experienced a demonic encounter*, in short the "Samuel" she saw was in fact a demon (a rebellious angel) impersonating the dead prophet.


witchcraft is strictly prohibited in bible law so it is unlikely God (or anyone faithful) would choose this method to communicate with anyone.

JW


RELATED POSTS

Lazarus' Story: What's it like being dead?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 12#p918712

Did Samuel talk to a witch while he was dead?
viewtopic.php?p=1097600#p1097600

What is the condition of the dead (+ Video)?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 15#p918715

Do any good spirits (angels) sometimes communicate with humans?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 91#p932691

Should all supernatural phenomena be attributed to God (or good spirits)?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 45#p955245

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

DEATH , WITCHCRAFT, and ... NDE*

*Near Death Experiences

[TRANSPONDER]

Genesis 10:24
24 And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.

Luke 3:35-36
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad...

GENESIS

Arphaxad
Salah;
Eber

Or

LUKE

Arphaxad
Cainan
Sala
[H]eber

Luke inserts a second “Cainan,” between Arphaxad (Arpachshad) and Shelah. (Luke 3:35, 36; compare Genesis 10:24; 11:12; 1 Chronicles 1:18, 24.) Most scholars take this to be a copyist’s error. “Cainan” is not found in this relative position in the genealogical listings in the Hebrew or the Samaritan texts, nor in any of the Targums or versions, except the Septuagint. And it does not seem that it was even in the earlier copies of the Septuagint. Josephus, who usually follows the Septuagint, lists Salah (Shelah) next as the son of Arphaxad (Arpachshad). (Antiquities of the Jews, Book I, chap. VI, par. 7) Early writers Irenaeus, Africanus, Eusebius and Jerome rejected the second “Cainan” in copies of Luke’s account as an interpolation

source Aid to Bible Understanding p. 639-640

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

BIBLICAL INERRANCY , COPYIST ERRORS and CORRUPTION OF SCRIPTURE

That strikes me as a good explanation. Of course 'sopyist error' would be a bit too convenient, but to point out that it isn't in some early manuscripts is evidence that an error is what it is. Good apologetic.

I dont believe any scripture I have read haw wordied me. I have either understood it or not, but once I came to accept the bible as Gods inspired word nothing in it has been a source of worry, on the contrary I feel as did the Psalmist ...

This is not; dismissing problems in such a way, with our without a barely relevant Bibletext is no good apologetics. Faithbased dismissal is not argument.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #5

Luke was inspired to interview eye witnesses and create an account based on that. He was not an expert in genealogies.

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account... (Luke1:3)

If his account wasn't accurate, then everything wasn't carefully investigated. If everything wasn't carefully investigated, he couldn't have been inspired to say that it was.

Luke's account is demonstrably in contradiction with the other syoptics and never mind how they differ from John. Now given that Luke has done some information - gathering - the original synoptic gospels, Josephus, Paul's letters and Q document, he may have claimed that he had made careful investigation (which is not the same as interviewing eyewitnesses) and this he claims the reason why he has to do it all again, because he has something more to say, and that is a substantial rewrite. What Luke is, is absolutely not eyewitness nor reliable, from the Nativity to the Sunday resurrection and onto Acts, which I wouldn't trust any further than I could spit it. Sorry, but your faithclaims fail to persuade under scrutiny.

It occurs to me that maybe I wasn't clear enough. I was arguing that Luke couldn't have been inspired to write the inconsistencies in his account.

[Miles]

Genesis 10:24
24 And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.

Luke 3:35-36
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad...

GENESIS

Arphaxad
Salah;
Eber

Or

LUKE

Arphaxad
Cainan
Sala
[H]eber

Luke inserts a second “Cainan,” between Arphaxad (Arpachshad) and Shelah. (Luke 3:35, 36; compare Genesis 10:24; 11:12; 1 Chronicles 1:18, 24.) Most scholars take this to be a copyist’s error. “Cainan” is not found in this relative position in the genealogical listings in the Hebrew or the Samaritan texts, nor in any of the Targums or versions, except the Septuagint. And it does not seem that it was even in the earlier copies of the Septuagint. Josephus, who usually follows the Septuagint, lists Salah (Shelah) next as the son of Arphaxad (Arpachshad). (Antiquities of the Jews, Book I, chap. VI, par. 7) Early writers Irenaeus, Africanus, Eusebius and Jerome rejected the second “Cainan” in copies of Luke’s account as an interpolation

Whatever the reason; copyist error, or corruption of the scripture, the fact remains, the Bible does contradict itself. "One cannot be the son of male X while at the same time be the son of male Y. And to presume that Arphaxad was Sala's grandfather, while an understandable attempt to quash the contradiction, is wholly unwarranted." According to Genesis 6:22 the grandfather of Salah was Shem. So, no matter how you cut it, the Bible is wrong somewhere, and that error is expressed as a contradiction.

Shem -> Arphaxad -> Salah -> Eber (Genesis) Vs
Arphaxad -> Cainan -> Sala -> Heber (Luke)

,

[JehovahsWitness]

Luke inserts a second “Cainan,” between Arphaxad (Arpachshad) and Shelah. (Luke 3:35, 36; compare Genesis 10:24; 11:12; 1 Chronicles 1:18, 24.) Most scholars take this to be a copyist’s error. “Cainan” is not found in this relative position in the genealogical listings in the Hebrew or the Samaritan texts, nor in any of the Targums or versions, except the Septuagint. And it does not seem that it was even in the earlier copies of the Septuagint. Josephus, who usually follows the Septuagint, lists Salah (Shelah) next as the son of Arphaxad (Arpachshad). (Antiquities of the Jews, Book I, chap. VI, par. 7) Early writers Irenaeus, Africanus, Eusebius and Jerome rejected the second “Cainan” in copies of Luke’s account as an interpolation
source Aid to Bible Understanding p. 639-640

Shem -> Arphaxad -> Salah -> Eber (Genesis 10:24)
Vs
Arphaxad -> [Cainan] -> Sala -> Heber (Luke 3:35-36)

A copyist error means the author made no error, and we are simply looking at the limitations of reproduction. The fact that copiest errors can be identified as such means it is usually possible to make an educated guess as to the original reading. I know of no identified copyist errors that change anything in the central themes or message of the bible. Returning to your original question, I cannot imagine why not being sure whether Salah's father was Cainan or Arphaxad would be the least bit troubling to anyone with a sense of proportion .

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

BIBLICAL INERRANCY , COPYIST ERRORS and CORRUPTION OF SCRIPTURE

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #5

Luke was inspired to interview eye witnesses and create an account based on that. He was not an expert in genealogies.

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account... (Luke1:3)

If his account wasn't accurate, then everything wasn't carefully investigated. If everything wasn't carefully investigated, he couldn't have been inspired to say that it was.

Luke's account is demonstrably in contradiction with the other syoptics and never mind how they differ from John. Now given that Luke has done some information - gathering - the original synoptic gospels, Josephus, Paul's letters and Q document, he may have claimed that he had made careful investigation (which is not the same as interviewing eyewitnesses) and this he claims the reason why he has to do it all again, because he has something more to say, and that is a substantial rewrite. What Luke is, is absolutely not eyewitness nor reliable, from the Nativity to the Sunday resurrection and onto Acts, which I wouldn't trust any further than I could spit it. Sorry, but your faithclaims fail to persuade under scrutiny.

It occurs to me that maybe I wasn't clear enough. I was arguing that Luke couldn't have been inspired to write the inconsistencies in his account.

Sorry, i no doubt misunderstood your post. I'm still not clear on your conclusions, but my post sets out where I stand: Luke used a number of different sources, but he fiddled, fabricated and fantasised his final gospel and Acts.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #5

Luke was inspired to interview eye witnesses and create an account based on that. He was not an expert in genealogies.

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account... (Luke1:3)

If his account wasn't accurate, then everything wasn't carefully investigated. If everything wasn't carefully investigated, he couldn't have been inspired to say that it was.

He investigated the events, not genealogical records.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #5

Luke was inspired to interview eye witnesses and create an account based on that. He was not an expert in genealogies.

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account... (Luke1:3)

If his account wasn't accurate, then everything wasn't carefully investigated. If everything wasn't carefully investigated, he couldn't have been inspired to say that it was.

He investigated the events, not genealogical records.

He claimed to have "carefully investigated everything from the beginning" (ἀκριβῶς παρακολουθέω πᾶς ἄνωθεν).....

...."I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Without the genealogical records being accurate, Theophilus couldn't have certainty (if the author had messed up on the genealogies, he might have messed up elsewhere as well).